Text Size

-

+

reset

“I know you intended on having a markup this year to move a budget … but I know there were forces aligned against that,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, told Conrad at a panel meeting.

“There has been a systematic plan for several years on behalf of Senator Reid and Democratic leadership to avoid votes on budgets, to avoid being accountable for having a real plan for the future.”

Added Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), a senior member of the panel: “Once again we’re passing the buck because the majority leader doesn’t want his caucus to take politically tough votes.”

A Reid spokesman had no immediate response, Reid clearly wants to protect his Senate majority, and had previously stated he had no intention of bringing a budget to the floor this year.

Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who’s retiring later this year, had vowed over the spring recess to hold a budget markup in his committee this week, assuaging Republicans who have complained about Democrats’ failure to move a budget the past three years.

On Tuesday, he said his 10-year budget plan would be based off recommendations from the president’s bipartisan Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission. But he surprised Republicans by noting the markup would not include any votes on amendments or a final budget resolution given the partisanship afflicting the Senate ahead of the November election.

“There is nothing more I want than for us to reach agreement right now,” Conrad said. “I am a realist, and I realize the chances of that are slim.”

Conrad and other Democrats on the committee stuck close to their party’s talking points. They argued that a 2013 budget resolution isn’t needed because last summer’s debt deal already established spending caps for this year and next. And they said that agreement was stronger than a non-binding budget resolution because it was signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The Democratic chairman argued that a longer-term deficit-reduction plan was needed, and that Bowles-Simpson offered the best place to start. It calls for $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years through a mix of spending cuts and tax reforms, including some revenue increases.

“It provides a comprehensive and balanced framework on which to build upon,” Conrad said. “It is not perfect, but it does represent middle ground.”

While some GOP senators praised the Bowles-Simpson blueprint, including Enzi and Mike Crapo of Idaho, Sessions lamented that Conrad’s plan did not cut spending below the level established by the Budget Control Act. “That is a tax-tax budget,” Sessions said.

Republicans insisted they were the only party with the “courage” to put forth a budget this year. Freshman Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) unveiled a budget blueprint on Wednesday that balances the budget in eight years through spending cuts, tax reforms and changes to entitlements. And House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan — which cuts spending $19 billion below last year’s debt agreement – passed the lower chamber last month on a mostly party-line vote.

But Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a senior Budget Committee member who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, faulted House Republicans for adopting additional cuts and reneging on the debt deal.

“We can’t afford to relitigate deals every time somebody makes some noise in a meeting,” she said.

Readers' Comments (10)

Please, Republicans won't vote for a budget that increases a dime in taxes, because Grover Norquist says so. This despite the overwhelming majority of Americans that support higher taxes on the wealthy. So sick of the Republican party.

So sick of this "class warfare" ! We don't hate rich people; we want to be that way, too. It is so disingenuous to talk about the rich paying less than their secretaries because before they paid 15% on the capital gains, they had to earn the "capital" in salary before they could invest it and have "gains". So they already paid 30 - 35% on it as regular income, then another 15% on their investment, thus "double taxation". That's why the 15% was put into the code in the first place. And, of course, Warren Buffett hasn't payed anything, and is fighting it in court. I guess that's what's meant by the Buffett Rule: Don't pay your own owed taxes and complain about everybody else. We could also call it the Geitner Rule, huh?

So sick of this "class warfare" ! We don't hate rich people; we want to be that way, too. It is so disingenuous to talk about the rich paying less than their secretaries because before they paid 15% on the capital gains, they had to earn the "capital" in salary before they could invest it and have "gains". So they already paid 30 - 35% on it as regular income, then another 15% on their investment, thus "double taxation". That's why the 15% was put into the code in the first place. And, of course, Warren Buffett hasn't payed anything, and is fighting it in court. I guess that's what's meant by the Buffett Rule: Don't pay your own owed taxes and complain about everybody else. We could also call it the Geitner Rule, huh?

harry reid and the rest of the democrat obstructionists should not receive one more dime in pay until they pass a budget. reid is single handedly doing more harm to this country than anyone other than obama. This is illegal, unconstitutional and anti-American for him to run the senate in this manner. reid should be removed from office.

NickinNova...... Overwhelming Majority?? Let's think about that for a minute. 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all but instead recieve governemnt aid. What would be the odds of them voting to not increase taxes, thinking they could get some additional benefit. Ok, so if we do not count their opinion, who is left? don't worry, I will tell you. It is the tax paying citizens. If we look at only their opinions, then there is about a 75% - 25% vot against raising taxes.

Now we both know that those who don't pay taxes are predominantly liberal minded. They vote their wallets just like you and I do. The only difference is that their wallets are government funded. Numbers don't lie, but liars use number.

Your entire post is so full of insinuations and assumptions, I just laughed. But hey, believe what you want. Did it occur to you that the majority of people who don't pay taxes are too far below the poverty level? (And you seem to assume that this is by choice.) Or did you know that certain types of Military retirees' income doesn't get taxed the same way as you and I? "...those who don't pay taxes are predominantly liberal minded." And we know this how? "...liars use number(s)." Wow. If you don't see the idiocy in THAT statement then there's no hope for you. EVERYBODY uses numbers. I hear them on FOX every time I peruse that channel (when absolutely nothing else is on t.v.) People like you keep our country divided. and that, Farfetched, is not an assumption.

Contrary to a "planted" article, with no named source, just "white house", in an effort to make themselves "relevant", Ryan, Sessions and Conrad and/or their surrogates have inappropriately relayed that any Appropriations Bills will not be signed by the "white House". This is clearly untrue and the threat, attributed to the democratic head of the appropriations committee first, (with no videotape to back it), has caught fire, as in the "telephone game" a lie repeated over and over from an "unnamed faceless White House Official" becomes truth. Here is the truth:

I. President Obama, has confirmed he will veto the current 10th extension of the Transportation Bill, due to Part II, which is an attack on executive power, and assault on the agencies of relevance and a poorly worded attempt by a female freshman republican woman not from New York, to play ball in the big leagues, when she should be playing kickball with 3rd graders. I fully support Dick Cheney's opinion of her, whether we take the blond version or the brunette "version", nice wig- HOn, NOT.

II. We ignore the Budget Act in effect since Truman, we can also ignore the Budget control act.

III. Admiral Mullen was referring to the fact that the government was about to shut down and troops and others would not receive a check. Never did Admiral Mullen explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly endorse the Budget Control Act.

IV. whose resignation letter did this come from: ""I will not preside over the dismantling and dessimation of our military: